The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

I have just watched another documentary on the B2 Bomber.

They claimed that it had a range of 10,000 kms, that's all the way to the US and back to the UK without re-fuelling!

If you take a look at the wings, they are very thin. They hold the engines near to the fuselage.

The fuselage is completely taken up with the cockpit and bombs in the middle behind the pilots.

The only place left for the fuel is from the engines outwards on the wings and there is NO WAY there is enough room for 10,000kms of fuel for 4 engines.

The only conclusion I can come to is that it must have some kind of anti-grav device fitted which would make sense given it's $3.5 billion price tag (so they claimed).

This anti-grav would be activated once at altitude or above the ocean / away from prying eyes so what normal fuel is on board can be used conventionally when required?

What do you guys think, any thoughts on this???

Now it's 20 years old, there must be some "chatter" out there about this from ex-pilots etc.??

reply to post by minkey53


Have you calculated how much fuel it would need to fly 10,000 kms?

1) It's an incredibly efficient shape for an aircraft, very low drag and as it's all wing you got plenty of life (actually they have a hard time landing the thing because the added lift due to the ground effect, it does not want to land!)

2) It's a massive aircraft really, much bigger than it seems in pictures, I reckon as well as the wings you can have fuel down the back from behind the cockpit between the engines and over the bomb bay.

3) Anti grav?

reply to post by minkey53


The B-2 Spirit has a fuel capacity of 167,000 pounds.

Hi,

Sorry to revert to Wikipedia but halfway down the following link you will find a picture of the B2 refuelling, to quote; "which extends its range past 6,000mi to support intercontinental sorties."

en.wikipedia.org...

Peace!

Originally posted by Now_Then
1) It's an incredibly efficient shape for an aircraft, very low drag and as it's all wing you got plenty of life (actually they have a hard time landing the thing because the added lift due to the ground effect, it does not want to land!)

2) It's a massive aircraft really, much bigger than it seems in pictures, I reckon as well as the wings you can have fuel down the back from behind the cockpit between the engines and over the bomb bay.

3) Anti grav?

Absolutely! The huge lifting surface of the vehicle creates a co-efficient fuel consumption ratio. I have also heard there is some form of ionizing device fitted into the leading edges so that resistance/friction is also reduced.

It's an amazing piece of machinery.

with regards to this topic: I suggest everyone find the book, "Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, Telsa, Ufos & Classified Aerospace Technology" by Dr. Paul Laviolette.

Your assumptions about the B2 are correct, and the schematics for how they did it are in the book.

Basically they ran an electric coil through the leading edge of the wings to create a positive charge -- thus electrifying the skin of the aircraft. Then, they created a negative charge back by the exhaust somewhere (been a year or so since I read the book) and the two charges together create an anti-grav field.

apparently this is also one of the reasons that ground crews are not allowed near the plane once it lands for a considerable period of time, due to the skin of the plane still holding an immense charge and ground crews getting the "shock" of their lives...

hah, I made a joke

read the book, it's extremely interesting, although a bit scientific and dry in parts if you're not that up to date on cutting edge scientific principles.

reply to post by nsaeyes


Ha! People on ATS will believe any old pap thrown their way, it seems. Basic physics will tell you that a plane, with a shedload of fuel, can fly for thousands of miles.

I suggest everyone finds that book, and flushes it.

We don't need some joker called Paul LaViolette to start spewing on about Tesla, alien UFOs, and other nonsense. This is the science and technology board, not the make a bunch of stuff up and sit around going "oooh!" board.

reply to post by davesidious


167,000 lbs / 6.7lbs/gal = 25,000 gallons/10,000km = 2.5 gallons/km or 16.75 lbs/km does not seem too bad a fuel burn per km, not much better than a tank!

Now for a time breakdown.

Say a slow cruising speed of 700km/hr

Edit to add-
10,000km/700km/hr=167,000lbs or 25,000gal/(14.25 hr trip time*60(determine fuel use per minute))=203lbs/min or 30gal/min

Sounds reasonable



[edit on 1/26/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by davesidious


it's a science book....have you read the book? He goes into a number of scientists within the last 40 years who have studied this issue and the science behind their experiments.

read the book first, then offer your opinions.

sorry, that was to the other guy in the quote above yours.

Uhhh, I helped build the leading edges of the wing for the first six aircraft. There's none of that crap in there and there is no way to put it in there.

Just to keep the fun going. What would power this anti-grav system that isn't there?

it's been a while (over a year) since I read the book, I can't remember what he said powered it initially, but I thought he said that once the skin, which he said is made out of a kind of Pyrex like material was electrified, that was all that was needed to keep the field present.

I'm not a scientist and if you worked on the wing from an electrical standpoint, then I'm sure you would understand the electrical science much better than myself. It's called subquantum kinetics or something like that.

reply to post by JIMC5499


since you helped build the leading edges of the wing, what kind of material is the skin made of?

and how does it respond to electricity?

reply to post by JIMC5499


Am I correct in thinking that the B2 is just a aluminum semi monocoque frame and then layers of a graphite composite layed over that structure.

It has been awhile for me working on aircraft.

No one is speaking at all of the effieciency of the engines.

This whole idea is akin to US building a P-80 Shooting Star with a propeller on the nose to hide the fact that it was propelled by a jet engine. I don't buy it. If we have antigravity technology, I don't think they would build it into a hybrid jet plane.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by butcherguy]

I'm not saying a word about the construction. Last I heard that information was still classified.

which plant did you work?

second line...

reply to post by nsaeyes


No, it's a pseudoscience book. It has as much to do with science as Star Trek. The guy's a crack-pot. According to you he has classified plans in a book, and you think they're legit.

One of the sure signs that an author is trying to foist a crackpot thesis onto the gullible general public is the use of a 'PhD' appended to his name on the book-cover. This author is no exception. The book is devoted to the non-science of 'electrogravitics'; the concept that electricity can negate gravity. This term is unknown to real physicists, and has only ever appeared once in Physics Abstracts (where it was used in a derogatory sense). Given that there is no bona fide scientific proof supporting the concept of antigravity, the author has fallen back on the usual rag-bag of pseudoscientific claims which pervade the 'disinformation super-highway' known as the internet. Indeed, gullible readers who haunt antigravity-related web-pages will find that they have paid to read again what they have probably already read online.

The author ticks all of the 'usual boxes': Tesla, T.T.Brown, John Searl, etc. The Searl chapter is particularly dismal, given that one has to be especially soft-headed to believe any his fantasies. The author even manages to identify the wrong person as being Searl in one of the photographs. He also mentions the so-called confirmatory experiments of Godin and Roschin, but fails to record that the experiments have been disowned by the head of the institute to which the inventors supposedly belong.

Such books as this would be harmless if they merely served to satisfy the need, of a certain class of consumer, to believe in 'suppressed science' and conspiracies. However, there are growing signs that the cancer of pseudoscience is invading the real world and wasting real resources. NASA, it will remembered, wasted millions of dollars on trying unsuccessfully to develop the so-called Podkletnov Effect. Real physicists had declared from the outset that this was certainly an artefact. They were ignored. One suspects that the NASA fiasco will not be the last, if scientifically ignorant decision-makers read superficially persuasive books such as the present one.

reply to post by JIMC5499


The fuel that apparently isn't there, DUH! Or unicorn farts. I forget which.